xvi
Harvester
you mean you dont care about solos. dont speak for everyone else.
There are as many solos as alliance members in this game...
Game over again. QQ
- Thread starter nolimit
- Start date
you mean you dont care about solos. dont speak for everyone else.
There are as many solos as alliance members in this game...
LuckySports
Landscape Designer
if you don't include bots and people that login less than once every 3 days.. I strongly beg to differ, Alliance play is much more prevalent, especially among active players. I know this, cause I have a list of every solo in the top 200, and an up-to-date listing of every alliance in the top 6. Its rather lopsided.
xvi
Harvester
lol you remember Dark Sider's alliance name when he was the only one in it? Alliance game OKAY
or something like that. epic!
epic
qaerwe5r4556
Planter
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2011
- Messages
- 30
This is also so bullshit. This game is has more to offer than alliance play. Really really hate when none-perspective ppl like you say this and use it as an argument.
Always hear this stupid argument. ITS AN ALLIANCE GAME AND THE CREATOR HAS SAID IT HIMSELF.
Really, we all know that this game is not only for alliances and that it would be much worse without the abiltiy to play solo. So can you please stop trying to brainwash yourselves with this lame argument.
And where is Azzer, I should buy the copyrights of him to this game and make this game BIG. Cant belieave how sentientel he is.
I know that ppl would like this game if they got the chance to try it and play it and know it.
And its not hard to learn like some of you think. Its like any other game in that sense. OK, maybe not since its with numbers But still the basics is the same that you need to figure out things yourselves.
willymchilybily
Landscape Designer
you say excuses like burnout, and allied game. annoy you/are bull ****. they are buzzwords to describe effects you are likely to be inexperienced in, because your relatively new to the forums? or so i get that impression. as all you do is insult people. anyway
allied game: because that is where you build community more than solo, where the majority of the social aspect comes from. the players that have played this game longest are likely frequently allied because they play it more than just to survive and score queen. they play for fun community, competition and banta. which it is easier to have in an alliance. that is why azzer favours alliances. its a business. and alliances bring in more revenue. buying gamecash to help out other allie mates. and getting blue prints so the alliance is well covered with adaquate route setups. and they have a longer gamer lifespan than solos. id go as far as to say that despite out of the 500 people that are playing (if that) less than half are allied. but i bet you they bring in more than half the revenue. that is why it is desirable to have alliances and community, and social aspects to keep people interested once they have played the game and got everything else out of it.
burnout: this isnt about people getting tired and being ****, and quitting, and that people play too much and kill them selves. it is linked to that. but the buzzword imo when i use it is more than just that. it is people having to put in more effort than is reasonable, than is possible to sustain, to not achieve, but just to survive. we arent on about at the top. where competition is fierce (sometimes) anyway, and burnout will always happen. we are talking in general about the amount of effort needed just to survive. have troops. achieve anything. new players dont like to die ALL the time. neither do veterans. and by the term "increase burn out" we also encumber not just rank 1 but that at every level in the game people will have to put in more effort to do what they are currently doing. which is fine if you like the game but makes it a larger hurdle for new players. and people that dont have the time to commit. why should thier experience suffer because you want a change. dont dismiss burnout, because if suddenly every one felt like oh **** this game is too much effort, and left there would be no game. and if we look at it in relation to the suggestion if you shrink the allies too much you get more ftw alliances. but you also get mroe rage quit alliances and if it takes an unreasonable amount of effort to win more people will stop playing ftw. and once again your back to 2-3 ftw alliances at most. and nothing has changed in terms of fun. It is just harder to defend. you need a abalance
So dont be so dismissive of other peoples comments just because your 14 years old and arrogant, thinking you know best, because you've played a whole 3-5 rounds. You are not gods gift to bushtarion. you are the same as every one else. and your opinion is no more important than anyone elses. so please give other peoples opinions as much attention as you expect people to give yours. who knows you may be able to give a reasoned debate and persuade them that smaller alliances are benificial rather than insulting them
Last edited:
willymchilybily
Landscape Designer
trolling/flamming....doesnt excuse him being a prick and not being able to reason an argument. There are people i find agressive and sometimes unpleasent. for me iamsmart can be like that...but he normally doesnt just spout abuse and normally backs up his arguement, and allows me to have some respect for what he says. this guys just contradicts himself and is abusive.
and implying that having fun/"a good time" isnt important. and we should just change stuff without any real reasoned debate. but yeah i give up on this thread as well there is no more real reasoned debate that can be had. people have made thier points. and the topic has strayed to far from the original and is just repeating old stuff. I just find him as annoying and as unpleseant as william86x, and would like to think he could at least give some form of reasoned debate on his viewpoints without resulting to insults and falicy, but he clearly cant you're right twigley im just gonna have to ignore him from now on, he is a lost cause.
qaerwe5r4556
Planter
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2011
- Messages
- 30
Im not here to insult anyone. I say what i think about the ppl here and the game, and what should be done to attract more players and have a more enjoyable game FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST YOU.
If you cant read between the lines then im sorry for you. I really dont try to insult anyone but when you speak like you think you KNOW IT ALL. then ofc its annoying. And togheter that there is so many of you. You really have made this forum to your own. And get offended by everyone who thinks different and want something different from the game. But I guess you never thought that way. You still just care about yourselves and trying to convince ppl that you are right. Im sorry that I dont buy your arguments nor am i gonna argmunent with ppl like you cuz you will just writer and longer argument why you are right. Thats why I say what I think instead of arguing and wasting time with arguing.
I hope Azzer come back and can rethink for whom this game is for becuase its a good game. But really lacks the people and its because ppl like you think this is only an alliance game. Its more than that.
And Azzer should really rethink about what he said about this IS AN ALLIANCE GAME.
If you cant read between the lines then im sorry for you. I really dont try to insult anyone but when you speak like you think you KNOW IT ALL. then ofc its annoying. And togheter that there is so many of you. You really have made this forum to your own. And get offended by everyone who thinks different and want something different from the game. But I guess you never thought that way. You still just care about yourselves and trying to convince ppl that you are right. Im sorry that I dont buy your arguments nor am i gonna argmunent with ppl like you cuz you will just writer and longer argument why you are right. Thats why I say what I think instead of arguing and wasting time with arguing.
I hope Azzer come back and can rethink for whom this game is for becuase its a good game. But really lacks the people and its because ppl like you think this is only an alliance game. Its more than that.
And Azzer should really rethink about what he said about this IS AN ALLIANCE GAME.
LuckySports
Landscape Designer
You keep arguing for something that if implemented, would have a negative effect on the game, and you keep saying we don't know what would be more enjoyable for everyone? Most of the people speaking have played this game for YEARS, and many have spent time in small lower-ranking alliances or solo. We know what we are talking about.
And you speak that there are so many of us - so you are now talking about a bunch of people, none of which know what they are talking about apparently? Please, your just coming on here and spouting nonsense, your not even backing your own argument, all you do is post and try to insult the people who disagreed with it without any real basis.
What you were suggesting wouldn't attract more players, it would run them off more quickly. Simple, we have seen its effect, we have explained exactly WHY it works that way, and you still refuse to read what others have written.
Before you post again, read the other posts, think about it.. Make a chart if it helps you, perhaps once you understand what has been said already, you'll be able to make an actual argument before you end up getting banned for constantly spamming the forums.
I don't mind hearing both sides of something, but I don't like to sit here and be told I know nothing about a subject when I was right in the heat of it 10+ rounds ago.
The simple fact is, this is a mass-multiplayer game, with gripping and interesting group play, solo in essence goes against that and doesn't offer the full range of play that you get in an alliance.
For a comparative example, think of World of Warcraft, it is a Mass-multiplayer game, the top end content in WoW is ALL 10/25 player based for PvE, and then 2v2/3v3/5v5 for PvP with only the 3v3/5v5 really being recognised for ingame titles etc (details may be out of date as i haven't played WoW since Wotlk), but to get to my point, in WoW you can't get the full experience out of the game by playing alone, due to it being a multiplayer game.
The same is here, imho the best bit of this game is alliances, being allied, making new friends, working together towards a goal. Solo play goes against the best bits of the game imo, you work alone or with at most 2 others (your pnaps, solo groups are just a pathetic concept of people who are too incompetent at socialising to be allied 24/7 and just use solo groups for their own convenience) it loses the best bits, working with 19 others towards the same goal should be the driving force behind the gameplay.
I've probably repeated myself a bit there
but anyway, if the game was intended for mass solo play, why were alliances put in with so many advantages over solos?
It is an alliance game, always has been, always will be.
What the game does need, is an actual advertising campaign, not ingame changes, the game works, but is intended for a playerbase double/triple the current size, thus issues such as bottom feeding etc, are more prominent due to lower player numbers.
For a comparative example, think of World of Warcraft, it is a Mass-multiplayer game, the top end content in WoW is ALL 10/25 player based for PvE, and then 2v2/3v3/5v5 for PvP with only the 3v3/5v5 really being recognised for ingame titles etc (details may be out of date as i haven't played WoW since Wotlk), but to get to my point, in WoW you can't get the full experience out of the game by playing alone, due to it being a multiplayer game.
The same is here, imho the best bit of this game is alliances, being allied, making new friends, working together towards a goal. Solo play goes against the best bits of the game imo, you work alone or with at most 2 others (your pnaps, solo groups are just a pathetic concept of people who are too incompetent at socialising to be allied 24/7 and just use solo groups for their own convenience) it loses the best bits, working with 19 others towards the same goal should be the driving force behind the gameplay.
I've probably repeated myself a bit there
but anyway, if the game was intended for mass solo play, why were alliances put in with so many advantages over solos?
It is an alliance game, always has been, always will be.
What the game does need, is an actual advertising campaign, not ingame changes, the game works, but is intended for a playerbase double/triple the current size, thus issues such as bottom feeding etc, are more prominent due to lower player numbers.
Willy, you should know better.
He doesn't mean a single word of what he is saying and is using everything he can just to troll you.
Youre all looking like idiots replying to him when nobody thinks he is right and others can see he is trolling.
/Facepalm
He doesn't mean a single word of what he is saying and is using everything he can just to troll you.
Youre all looking like idiots replying to him when nobody thinks he is right and others can see he is trolling.
/Facepalm
LuckySports
Landscape Designer
yeah, but we're all bored, so let us pretend that he has a competent cell in his body eh?
Bit harsh Oggie
Considering I've played both my fair share of both allied play and solo play, I can safely say that if you are playing the game without contactability and with an activity of <5 hours a day, solo play is far more enjoyable and with IRC can be just as fun from a social point of view
However, to add to the points made, I believe that Azzer wants to emphasise the allied aspect of the game (hence the plethora of Age 5 changes he made in that regard, for example, can't remember life without mob notes!!!), but still accepts solo play as valid option.
At the end of the day, who wins or loses the game is largely determined by the activity, contactability and determination of those players (and to some extent the choice of routes). Do they therefore deserve to win for these characteristics? Arguably yes, arguably no, but on the whole they've put a lot of effort in and so earn themselves a win.
InSoMnIaC20
Head Gardener
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2008
- Messages
- 464
qaerwe5r4556 Makes me smile,
Post some more please, i just started reading this thread. every one of your posts are outrageously short sighted, generalised and IMO completly and utterly trash ( But also quite funny )
Unapproved by DA - Troll. No warnings given.
Post some more please, i just started reading this thread. every one of your posts are outrageously short sighted, generalised and IMO completly and utterly trash ( But also quite funny )
Unapproved by DA - Troll. No warnings given.
Last edited by a moderator:
Enrico
Tree Surgeon
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 518
Considering I've played both my fair share of both allied play and solo play, I can safely say that if you are playing the game without contactability and with an activity of <5 hours a day, solo play is far more enjoyable and with IRC can be just as fun from a social point of view
I respectfully disagree. The last two rounds Ive been allied, uncontactable and playing less than 5 hours a day, and it is much better, and less painful to do that in an alliance than solo. You just need the right alliance to do so in.
tobapopalos
Hydroponics Developer
They both have their benefits. Solo is more reliable since you always know roughly how much can hit you, and you can sleep mode at night if you feel like it. Alliances are less reliable since you'll only be getting into ones below rank 5, approximately, so activity and night cover won't be great, so you can log in to find you've been raped at any time.
Another good thing about solo is that you don't have any responsibility to allymates. You can log in if you feel like it, or you can not. It doesn't affect anybody else if you're offline for a few days, whereas in an alliance it'll probably piss some people off.
As for the social aspect, it depends entirely on the alliance. If you get into a good group with some friends it can be awesome. I've enjoyed my rounds in alliances such as EH and Comatose where we didn't have any rank aspirations and just pissed about. And on the other hand I've played in relatively inactive alliances which have been painful to endure, where I just yearned for the solitude of soloness.
Another good thing about solo is that you don't have any responsibility to allymates. You can log in if you feel like it, or you can not. It doesn't affect anybody else if you're offline for a few days, whereas in an alliance it'll probably piss some people off.
As for the social aspect, it depends entirely on the alliance. If you get into a good group with some friends it can be awesome. I've enjoyed my rounds in alliances such as EH and Comatose where we didn't have any rank aspirations and just pissed about. And on the other hand I've played in relatively inactive alliances which have been painful to endure, where I just yearned for the solitude of soloness.
willymchilybily
Landscape Designer
yeah i have to agree with what toby says. i think alliance play has a much much greater potential to be fun. and most people should do it, in theory. but the reality is at the lower levels people are new and a little selfish or lazy or not on regularly. the up shot is low down alliances can be attacked by some one 3x the size and the defenders wont send defence or they may have no one on. the problem is that person can send all thier units and there is nothing the alliance can do. but fake it and hope
where as solo you dont have to defend often if at all sometimes. you can attack all the time if you keep some blockers back etc. or are matched well with your pnaps route, and you can garentee some one that is 3x your size cannt send all thier troops at you, and if they do the defence wont just be half assed and die it will destroy them. so its catch 22 play with no one to stop your land loss if you do get zeroed whilst offline an no ones looking, and only a few people to talk to. or play with a fun group of 20 do your best and maybe even manage some good defence.
the fact is if you play with a really good group of 20 people it will be good. if you have 2 good pnaps it will be good. but for me alliance play wil be better.
if you play with two useless naps or 20(or less in some allainces) useless players in either case the experience is a little frustrating. and normally results in death. but with solo play you can rely more on your self, and your set up and how much you attack and raise your own AR. so you dont need to rely on having members in your alliance as dedicated as you.
but if truely dedicated you have more fun allied i think. you just need one at the level you are willing to play too. which is hard.
irrelivant:
if azzer ever does forced alliances (he wont) they should so be made up of randoms based on activity. that way at the start every one has a chance of being in a top alliance. and they continuosly update so every 24 hrs people that have been less active have the choice to be removed. and people that have been more active have the choice to be recruited...ofc theres a million changes that would need to be bought in to allow it properly without abuse. so those that play most actively can have a chance to be in a good alliance. and those that dont care..well they dont care so they will be happy w/e
where as solo you dont have to defend often if at all sometimes. you can attack all the time if you keep some blockers back etc. or are matched well with your pnaps route, and you can garentee some one that is 3x your size cannt send all thier troops at you, and if they do the defence wont just be half assed and die it will destroy them. so its catch 22 play with no one to stop your land loss if you do get zeroed whilst offline an no ones looking, and only a few people to talk to. or play with a fun group of 20 do your best and maybe even manage some good defence.
the fact is if you play with a really good group of 20 people it will be good. if you have 2 good pnaps it will be good. but for me alliance play wil be better.
if you play with two useless naps or 20(or less in some allainces) useless players in either case the experience is a little frustrating. and normally results in death. but with solo play you can rely more on your self, and your set up and how much you attack and raise your own AR. so you dont need to rely on having members in your alliance as dedicated as you.
but if truely dedicated you have more fun allied i think. you just need one at the level you are willing to play too. which is hard.
irrelivant:
if azzer ever does forced alliances (he wont) they should so be made up of randoms based on activity. that way at the start every one has a chance of being in a top alliance. and they continuosly update so every 24 hrs people that have been less active have the choice to be removed. and people that have been more active have the choice to be recruited...ofc theres a million changes that would need to be bought in to allow it properly without abuse. so those that play most actively can have a chance to be in a good alliance. and those that dont care..well they dont care so they will be happy w/e
Razorwolf
Pruner
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2009
- Messages
- 94
all this talk about forced ally is stupid.. will never work.
However having all solo wouldnt be too hard. Think about it, ive played several games where they have different servers with different world rules.
We could easily have one with ally, one with only solo. That way the people who want the ally and banter and stuff can and the ppl who wanna be anti-social can be too....
However having all solo wouldnt be too hard. Think about it, ive played several games where they have different servers with different world rules.
We could easily have one with ally, one with only solo. That way the people who want the ally and banter and stuff can and the ppl who wanna be anti-social can be too....